...as long as you're living within the parameters set by society.
For example...let's say that I consider that freedom "from" authority to mean that I am allowed to walk naked through the mall, and to fornicate on the salad line at Sweet Tomatoes. Well, obviously, as a society we have agreed that those actions constitute WAY too much freedom, and we will immediately call in the authorities to enforce the part of our common, agreed upon restrictions on our actions that disallows me from exercising my freedom to walk naked and fornicate on the cucumber salad.
If we truly defined freedom and being freedom "from" authorities, no one would have the right to stop me from doing exactly as I pleased; the owner of the establishment would certainly lack the ability to stop me as I would stand on my freedom to conduct myself as I pleased without deference to his authority as a business owner, or from the patrons at large, since my rights to do as I pleased provided me with the freedom to ignore the authority they may feel they had by their sheer numbers.
Regarding the business owner, you really don't have freedom if you can't enforce your own standards on your own property. Those who wish to fornicate, as you put it, should be free to do that on their own property. Not yours.
Your freedom to throw a fist stops before it touches my nose, as they say. You should have freedom to do as you please until it impacts my freedom.
I recognize that that allows a lot of latitude for definition. I also recognize that society has certain traditions that it enforces by law, such as no screwing in public, and I have no problem with that kind enforcement most of the time.
Anyhow, as long as everyone is equal before the law, then we can avoid the arbitrary use of power that defines totalitarianism. I trust that Rudy was alluding to that idea.